COMMENTARY
C OMMENTARY O N T HE E PISTLE T O T HE R OMANS
by Charles Hodge
B o o k s F o r T h e A g e s
AGES Software • Albany, OR USA Version 2.0 © 1996, 1997
HYPERTEXT TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface Introduction
1. The Apostle Paul.
2. Origin and Condition of the Church at Rome.
3. Time and Place of its Composition.
4. Authenticity of the Epistle.
5. Analysis of the Epistle.
The Commentary
Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Chapter V Chapter VI Chapter VII Chapter VIII Chapter IX Chapter X Chapter XI Chapter XII Chapter XIII Chapter XIV Chapter XV Chapter XVI
Notes
Publishers Notes
COMMENTARY
ON THE
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
BY
CHARLES HODGE, D.D.
SAGE Software Albany, Oregon
© 1995
PREFACE
T
HE author of this Commentary is more widely known as a writer in the departments of controversial and systematic theology than as an expositor of Scripture. Nevertheless, his whole life was primarily devoted to the critical and systematic study of the Bible, and his entire theological method and system is eminently biblical. He became a teacher of the Original Languages of Scripture in Princeton Theological Seminary in 1820, and the professor of Oriental and Biblical Literature in 1822. He spent two years in Germany, from 1826 to 1828, with Tholuck and Hengstenberg and Genesis, in pursuing exclusively biblical studies. For twenty years his time was wholly occupied with the study of the languages, literature, historical genesis, criticism, and interpretation of the Bible, especially of the New Testament. He continued to lecture on the Pauline Epistles to successive classes for fifty-six years, — from 1822 to 1878.It was not until 1840 that, much to his own regret, he was transferred to the department of Didactic Theology. And hence the result was inevitable that his theology should bear the mark of his own personal history and habit, and that it should be distinguished from that of the majority of his eminent contemporaries, alike of the New England and of the German schools, as being a simple induction from the teachings of Scripture, instead of being adjusted to, if not founded upon, some of the prevalent philosophical schemes of the day. It is the mode in this day of violent reactions to exaggerate one-sidedly partial truths. Especially is it asserted with unconscientious indiscrimination that systematic theologians of the past as a class have ignored the human and historical genesis of the several writings which compose the Bible; and that, evolving their systems by a speculative process from narrow premises, they have sought to support them by disconnected and irrelevant citation of separate texts. Yet even Archdeacon Farrar, in his recent “Bampton Lectures,” acknowledges that Calvin, the father of Protestant systematic theology, “was one of the greatest interpreters of Scripture who ever lived.” Yet Calvin published his Institutes first, and his Commentaries afterwards. The order in which Dr.
Hodge was providentially led to conduct his studies was more natural and
inspired and controlled by the word of God. All candid students of the theology of the past generation must acknowledge that Dr. Hodge has anticipated and preserved in his system much of the results of the deservedly vaunted discipline of Biblical Theology, having, as a matter of actual history, as well as of intention, so immediately drawn his material from a continuous study of the sacred text.
His “Commentary on Romans” was first published in 1835. An abridged edition appeared in 1836. The former was translated and published in France in 1841, and the latter republished in England in 1838. The whole work was rewritten and enriched with his mature studies in 1864. It is this last and most perfect edition which is now offered to the public. It should continue to be used by all students of the author’s “Systematic Theology,”
presenting as it does, in continuous exposition of the most systematic of the doctrinal Epistles, the biblical ground and verification of the “system”
which he elsewhere so clearly states and defends.
A. A. HODGE.
PRINCETON, N. J., AUGUST, 1886.
INTRODUCTION
T
HEA
POSTLEP
AUL.
W
HEN Paul and the other Apostles were called to enter upon their important duties, the world was in a deplorable and yet most interesting state. Both Heathenism and Judaism were in the last stages of decay. The polytheism of the Greeks and Romans had been carried to such an extent as to shock the common sense of mankind, and to lead the more intelligent among them openly to reject and ridicule it. This skepticism had already extended itself to the mass of the people, and become almost universal. As the transition from infidelity to superstition is certain, and generally immediate, all classes of the people were disposed to confide in dreams, enchantments, and other miserable substitutes for religion. The two reigning systems of philosophy, the Stoic and Platonic, were alike insufficient to satisfy the agitated minds of men. The former sternly repressed the best natural feelings of the soul, insulating nothing but a blind resignation to the unalterable course of things, and promising nothing beyond an unconscious existence hereafter. The latter regarded all religions as but different forms of expressing the same general truths, and represented the whole mythological system as an allegory, as incomprehensible to the common people as the pages of a book to those who cannot read. This system promised more than it could accomplish. It excited feelings which it could not satisfy, and thus contributed to produce that general ferment which existed at this period. Among the Jews, generally, the state of things was hardly much better. They had, indeed, the form of true religion, but were in a great measure destitute of its spirit.The Pharisees were contented with the form; the Sadducees were skeptics;
the Essenes were enthusiasts and mystics. Such being the state of the world, men were led to feel the need of some surer guide than either reason or tradition, and some better foundation of confidence than either heathen philosophers or Jewish sects could afford. Hence, when the glorious gospel was revealed, thousands of hearts, in all parts of the world, were prepared, by the grace of God, to exclaim, This is all our desire and all our salvation!
The history of the apostle Paul shows that he was prepared to act in such a state of society. In the first place, he was born, and probably educated in part, at Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia; a city almost on a level with Athens and Alexandria, for its literary zeal and advantages. In one respect, it is said by ancient writers to have been superior to either of them. In the other cities mentioned, the majority of students were strangers, but in Tarsus they were the inhabitants themselves. 1 That Paul passed the early part of his life here is probable, because the trade which he was taught, in accordance with the custom of the Jews, was one peculiarly common in Cilicia. From the hair of the goats, with which that province abounded, a rough cloth was made, which was much used in the manufacture of tents.
The knowledge which the apostle manifests of the Greek authors, 1 Corinthians 15:33, Titus 1:12, would also lead us to suppose that he had received at least part of his education in a Grecian city. Many of his characteristics, as a writer, lead to the same conclusion. He pursues, far more than any other of the sacred writers of purely Jewish education, the logical method in presenting truth. There is almost always a regular concatenation in his discourses, evincing the spontaneous exercise of a disciplined mind, even when not carrying out a previous plan. His epistles, therefore, are far more logical than ordinary letters, without the formality of regular dissertations. Another characteristic of his manner is, that in discussing any question, he always presents the ultimate principle on which the decision depends. These and similar characteristics of this apostle are commonly, and probably with justice, ascribed partly to his turn of mind, and partly to his early education. We learn from the Scriptures themselves, that the Holy Spirit, in employing men as his instruments in conveying truth, did not change their mental habits; he did not make Jews write like Greeks, or force all into the same mold. Each retained his own peculiarities of style and manner, and, therefore, whatever is peculiar to each, is to be referred, not to his inspiration, but to his original character and culture. While the circumstances just referred to, render it probable that the apostles habits of mind were in some measure influenced by his birth and early education in Tarsus, there are others (such as the general character of his style) which show that his residence there could not have been long, and that his education was not thoroughly Grecian. We learn from himself, that he was principally educated at
Jerusalem, being brought up, as he says, at the feet of Gamaliel. (Acts 22:3).
This is the second circumstance in the providential preparation of the apostle for his work, which is worthy of notice. As Luther was educated in a Roman Catholic seminary, and thoroughly instructed in the scholastic theology of which he was to be the great opposer, so the apostle Paul was initiated into all the doctrines and modes of reasoning of the Jews, with whom his principal controversy was to be carried on. The early adversaries of the gospel were all Jews. Even in the heathen cities they were so numerous, that it was through them and their proselytes that the church in such places was founded. We find, therefore, that in almost all his epistles, the apostle contends with Jewish terrorists, the corrupters of the gospel by means of Jewish doctrines. Paul, the most extensively useful of all the apostles, was thus a thoroughly educated man; a man educated with a special view to the work which he was called to perform. We find, therefore, in this, as in most similar cases, that God effects his purposes by those instruments which he has, in the ordinary course of his providence, specially fitted for their accomplishment.
In the third place, Paul was converted without the intervention of human instrumentality, and was taught the gospel by immediate revelation. “I certify you, brethren,” he says to the Galatians, “that the gospel which was preached of me, is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” These circumstances are important, as he was thus placed completely on a level with the other apostles. He had seen the Lord Jesus, and could therefore be one of the witnesses of his resurrection; he was able to claim the authority of an original inspired teacher and messenger of God. It is obvious that he laid great stress upon this point, from the frequency with which he refers to it. He was thus furnished not only with the advantages of his early education, but with the authority and power of an apostle of Jesus Christ.
His natural character was ardent, energetic, uncompromising, and severe.
How his extravagance and violence were subdued by the grace of God, is abundantly evident from the moderation, mildness, tenderness, and conciliation manifested in all his epistles. Absorbed in the one object of
thing necessary for this purpose. He no longer insisted that others should think and act just as he did. So that they obeyed Christ, he was satisfied;
and he willingly conformed to their prejudices, and tolerated their errors, so far as the cause of truth and righteousness allowed. By his early education, by his miraculous conversion and inspiration, by his natural disposition, and by the abundant grace of God, was this apostle fitted for his work, and sustained under his multiplied and arduous labors.
O
RIGIN ANDC
ONDITION OF THEC
HURCH ATR
OME.
One of the providential circumstances which most effectually contributed to the early propagation of Christianity, was the dispersion of the Jews among surrounding nations. They were widely scattered through the East, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy, especially at Rome. As they were permitted, throughout the wide extent of the Roman Empire, to worship God according to the traditions of their fathers, synagogues were everywhere established in the midst of the heathen. The apostles, being Jews, had thus always a ready access to the people. The synagogues furnished a convenient place for regular assemblies, without attracting the attention or exciting the suspicion of the civil authorities. In these assemblies they were sure of meeting not only Jews, but the heathen also, and precisely the class of heathen best prepared for the reception of the gospel. The infinite superiority of the pure theism of the Old Testament Scriptures to any form of religion known to the ancients, could not fail to attract and convince multitudes among the pagans, wherever the Jewish worship was established. Such persons became either proselytes or
“devout,” that is, worshippers of the true God. Being free from the inveterate national and religious prejudices of the Jews, and at the same time convinced of the falsehood of polytheism, they were the most susceptible of all the early hearers of the gospel. It was by converts from among this class of persons, that the churches in all the heathen cities were in a great measure founded. There is abundant evidence that the Jews were very numerous at Rome, and that the class of proselytes or devout persons among the Romans was also very large. Philo says (Legatio in Caium, p. 1041, ed. Frankf.) that Augustus had assigned the Jews a large district beyond the Tiber for their residence. He accounts for their being so
numerous, from the fact that the captives carried thither by Pompey were liberated by their masters, who found it inconvenient to have servants who adhered so strictly to a religion which forbade constant and familiar intercourse with the heathen. Dion Cassius (Lib. 60, c. 6) mentions that the Jews were so numerous at Rome, that Claudius was at first afraid to banish them, but contented himself with forbidding their assembling together. That he afterwards, on account of the tumult which they occasioned, did banish them from the city, is mentioned by Suetonius (Vita Claudii, c. 25), and by Luke, Acts 18:2. That the Jews, on the death of Claudius, returned to Rome, is evident from the fact that Suetonius and Dion Cassius speak of their being very numerous under the following reigns: and also from the contents of this epistle, especially the salutations (chap. 16) addressed to Jewish Christians.
That the establishment of the Jewish worship at Rome had produced considerable effect on the Romans, is clear from the statements of the heathen writers themselves. Ovid speaks of the synagogues as places of fashionable resort; Juvenal (Satire 14) ridicules his countrymen for becoming Jews; 2 and Tacitus (Hist. Lib. 5, ch. 5) 3 refers to the presents sent by Roman proselytes to Jerusalem. The way was thus prepared for the early reception and rapid extension of Christianity in the imperial city.
When the gospel was first introduced there, or by whom the introduction was effected, is unknown. Such was the constant intercourse between Rome and the provinces, that it is not surprising that some of the numerous converts to Christianity made in Judea, Asia Minor, and Greece, should at an early period find their way to the capital. It is not impossible that many who had enjoyed the personal ministry of Christ, and believed in his doctrines, might have removed or returned to Rome, and been the first to teach the gospel in that city. Still less improbable is it, that among the multitudes present at Jerusalem at the day of Pentecost, among whom were “strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,” there were some who carried back the knowledge of the gospel. That the introductory of Christianity occurred at an early period, may be inferred not only from the probabilities just referred to, but from other circumstances. When Paul wrote this epistle, the faith of the Romans was spoken of throughout the world, which would seem to imply that the church had already been long established. Aquila and Priscilla, who left Rome on account of the decree
departure; nothing at least is said of their having been converted by the apostle. He found them at Corinth, and being of the same trade, he abode with them, and on his departure took them with him into Syria.
The tradition of some of the ancient fathers, that Peter was the founder of the church at Rome, is inconsistent with the statements given in the Acts of the Apostles. Irenaeus (Haeres. 3:1) says, that “Matthew wrote his gospel, while Peter and Paul were in Rome preaching the gospel and founding the church there.” And Eusebius (Chron. ad ann. 2 Claudii) says,
“Peter having founded the church at Antioch, departed for Rome, preaching the gospel.” Both these statements are incorrect. Peter did not found the church at Antioch, nor did he and Paul preach together at Rome.
That Peter was not at Rome prior to Paul’s visit, appears from the entire silence of this epistle on the subject; and from no mention being made of the fact in any of the letters written from Rome by Paul during his imprisonment. The tradition that Peter ever was at Rome, rests on very uncertain authority. It is first mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth, in the latter half of the second century, and from that time it seems to have been generally receded. This account is in itself improbable, as Peter’s field of labor was in the East, about Babylon; and as the statement of Dionysius is full of inaccuracies. He makes Peter and Paul the founders of the church at Corinth, and makes the same assertion regarding the church at Rome, neither of which is true. He also says that Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom at the same time at Rome, which, from the silence of Paul respecting Peter, during his last imprisonment, is in the highest degree improbable. 4 History, therefore, has left us ignorant of the time when this church was founded, and the persons by whom the work was effected.
The condition of the congregation may be inferred from the circumstances already mentioned, and from the drift of the apostle’s letter. As the Jews and proselytes were very numerous at Rome, the early converts, as might be expected, were from both these classes. The latter, however, seem greatly to have predominated, because we find no such evidence of a tendency to Judaism, as is supposed in the Epistle to the Galatians. Paul no where seems to apprehend that the church at Rome would apostatize, as the Galatian Christians had already done. And in chapters 14 and 15 his
exhortations imply that the Gentile party were more in danger of oppressing the Jewish, than the reverse. Paul, therefore, writes to them as Gentiles (chap. 1:13,) and claims, in virtue of his office as apostle to the Gentiles, the right to address them with all freedom and authority (chap.
15:16.) The congregation, however, was not composed exclusively of this class; many converts, originally Jews, were included in their numbers, and those belonging to the other class were more or less under the influence of Jewish opinions. The apostle, therefore, in this, as in all his other epistles addressed to congregations similarly situated, refutes those doctrines of the Jews which were inconsistent with the gospel, and answers those objections which they and those under their influence were accustomed to urge against it. These different elements of the early churches were almost always in conflict, both as to points of doctrine and discipline. The Jews insisted, to a greater or less extent, on their peculiar privileges and customs; and the Gentiles disregarded, and at times despised the scruples and prejudices of their weaker brethren. The opinions of the Jews particularly controverted in this epistle are:
1. That connection with Abraham by natural descent, and by the bond of circumcision, together with the observance of the law, is sufficient to secure the favor of God.
2. That the blessings of the Messiah’s reign were to be confined to Jews and those who would consent to become proselytes.
3. That subjection to heathen magistrates was inconsistent with the dignity of the people of God, and with their duty to the Messiah as King.
There are clear indications in other parts of Scripture, as well as in their own writings, that the Jews placed their chief dependence upon the covenant of God with Abraham, and the peculiar rites and ordinances connected with it. The Baptist, when speaking to the Jews, tells them,
“Say not, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham,” (Luke 3:8) It is clearly implied in this passage, that the Jews supposed that to have Abraham as their father was sufficient to secure the favor of God. The Rabbins taught that God had promised Abraham, that his descendants, though wicked, should be saved on account of his merit. Justin Martyr mentions this as the ground of confidence of the Jews in his day. “Your
kingdom of heaven is prepared for all those who are the natural seed of Abraham, even though they be sinners and unbelievers.” (Dialogue with Trypho.) They were accustomed to say, “Great is the virtue of circumcision; no circumcised person enters hell.” And one of their standing maxims was, “All Israel hath part in eternal life.” 5
The second leading error of the Jews was a natural result of the one just referred to. If salvation was secured by connection with Abraham, then none who were not united to their great ancestor could be saved. There is no opinion of the Jews more conspicuous in the sacred writings, than that they were greatly superior to the Gentiles; that the theocracy and all its blessings belonged to them; and that others could attain even an inferior station in the kingdom of the Messiah only by becoming Jews.
The indisposition of the Jews to submit to heathen magistrates, arose partly from their high ideas of their own dignity, and their contempt for other nations; partly from their erroneous opinions of the nature of the Messiah’s kingdom; and partly, no doubt, from the peculiar hardships and oppressions to which they were exposed. The prevalence of this indisposition among them is proved by its being a matter of discussion whether it was even lawful to pay tribute to Caesar; by their assertion that, as Abraham’s seed, they were never in bondage to any man; and by their constant tumults and rebellions, which led first to their banishment from Rome, and finally to the utter destruction of their city. The circumstance of the church at Rome, composed of both Jewish and Gentile converts; surrounded by Jews who still insisted on the necessity of circumcision, of legal obedience, and of connection with the family of Abraham, in order to salvation; and disposed on many points to differ among themselves sufficiently account for the character of this epistle.
T
IME ANDP
LACE OF ITSC
OMPOSITION.
There are no sufficient data for fixing accurately and certainly the chronology of the life and writings of the apostle Paul. It is, therefore, in most cases, only by a comparison of various circumstances, that an approximation to the date of the principal events of his life can be made.
With regard to this epistle, it is plain, from its contents, that it was written just as Paul was about to set out on his last journey to Jerusalem. In the fifteenth chapter he says, that the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia had made a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, and that he was on this eve of his departure for that city (ver. 25). This same journey is mentioned in Acts 15, and occurred most probably in the spring (see Acts 20:16) of the year 58 or 59. This date best suits the account of his long imprisonment, first at Cesarea, and then at Rome, of four years, and his probable liberation in 62 or 63. His subsequent labors and second imprisonment would fill up the intervening period of two or three years, to the date of his martyrdom, towards the close of the reign of Nero. That this epistle was written from Corinth, appears from the special recommendation of Phebe, a deaconess of the neighboring church, who was probably the bearer of the letter (chap. 16:1); from the salutations of Erastus and Gaius, both residents of Corinth, to the Romans (chap 16:23);
compare 2 Timothy 4:20, and 1 Corinthians 1:14; and from the account given in Acts 20:2, 3, of Paul’s journey through Macedonia into Greece, before his departure for Jerusalem, for the purpose of carrying the contributions of the churches for the poor in that city.
A
UTHENTICITY OF THEE
PISTLE.
That this epistle was written by the apostle Paul, admits of no reasonable doubt.
1. It, in the first place, purports to be his. It bears his signature, and speaks throughout in his name.
2. It has uniformly been recognized as his. From the apostolic age to the present time, it has been referred to, and quoted by a regular series of authors, and recognized as of divine authority in all the churches. It would be requisite, in order to disprove its authenticity, to account satisfactorily for these facts, on the supposition of the epistle being spurious. The passages in the early writers, in which this epistle is alluded to or cited, are very numerous, and may be seen in Eardner’s Credibility, Vol. 2.
3. The internal evidence is no less decisive in its favor.
with the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, because the language and style are such as no one, not thus circumstanced, could adopt; and because the whole letter evinces such an intimate acquaintance with Jewish opinions and prejudices.
(b It agrees perfectly in style and manner with the other epistles of this apostle.
(c) It is, in the truth and importance of its doctrines, and in the elevation and purity of its sentiments, immeasurably superior to any uninspired production of the age in which it appeared. A comparison of the genuine apostolic writings with the spurious productions of the first and second centuries, affords one of the strongest collateral evidences of the authenticity and inspiration of the former.
(d) The incidental or undesigned coincidences, as to matters of fact, between this epistle and other parts of the New Testament, are such as to afford the clearest evidence of its having proceeded from the pen of the apostle. Compare Romans 15:25-31 with Acts 20:2, 3, 24:17, 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 8:1-4, 9:2; Romans 16:21-23 with Acts 20:4; Romans 16:3, et seq. with Acts 18:2, 18-26, 1 Corinthians 16:19, etc. (see Paley’s Horae Paulinae).
4. Besides these positive proofs, there is the important negative consideration, that there are no grounds for questioning its
authenticity. There are no discrepancies between this and other sacred writings; no counter testimony among the early Fathers; no historical or critical difficulties which must be solved before it can be recognized as the work of Paul. There is, therefore, no book in the Bible, and there is no ancient book in the world, of which the authenticity is more certain than that of this epistle.
A
NALYSIS OF THEE
PISTLE.
The epistle consists of three parts. The first, which includes the first eight chapters, is occupied in the discussion of the doctrine of justification and
its consequences. The second, embracing chs. 9-11, treats of the calling of the Gentiles, the rejection and future conversion of the Jews. The third consists of practical exhortations and salutations to the Christians at Rome.
Thefirst part the apostle commences by saluting the Roman Christians, commending them for their faith, and expressing his desire to see them, and his readiness to preach the gospel at Rome. This readiness was founded on the conviction that the gospel revealed the only method by which men can be saved, viz., by faith in Jesus Christ, and this method is equally applicable to all mankind, Gentiles as well as Jews, chap. 1:1-17. Paul thus introduces the two leading topics of the epistle.
In order to establish his doctrine respecting justification, he first proves that the Gentiles cannot be justified by their own works, chap. 1:18-39;
and then establishes the same position in reference to the Jews, chs. 2:3, 1-20. Having thus shown that the method of justification by works is unavailable for sinners, he unfolds that method which is taught in the gospel, chap. 3:21-31. The truth and excellence of this method he confirms in chs. 4 and 5. The obvious objection to the doctrine of gratuitous acceptance, that it must lead to the indulgence of sin, is answered, and the true design and operation of the law are exhibited in chs. 6 and 7; and the complete security of all who confide in Christ is beautifully unfolded in chap. 8.
In arguing against the Gentiles, Paul assumes the principle that God will punish sin, chap. 1:18, and then proves that they are justly chargeable both with impiety and immorality, because though they possessed a competent knowledge of God, they did not worship him, but turned unto idols, and gave themselves up to all kinds of iniquity, chap. 1:19-32.
He commences his argument with the Jews by expanding the general principle of the divine justice, and especially insisting on God’s impartiality by showing that he will judge all men, Jews and Gentiles, according to their works, and according to the light they severally enjoyed, chap. 2:1-16. He shows that the Jews, when tried by these rules, are as
2:17-29.
The peculiar privileges of the Jews afford no ground of hope that they will escape being judged on the same principles with other men, and when thus judged, they are found to be guilty before God. All men, therefore, are, as the Scriptures abundantly teach, under condemnation, and consequently cannot be justified by their own works, chap. 3:1-20.
The gospel proposes the only method by which God will justify men — a method which is entirely gratuitous; the condition of which is faith; which is founded on the redemption of Christ; which reconciles the justice and mercy of God; humbles man; lays the foundation for an universal religion, and establishes the law, chap. 3:21-31.
The truth of this doctrine is evinced from the example of Abraham, the testimony of David, the nature of the covenant made with Abraham and his seed, and from the nature of the law. He proposes the conduct of Abraham as an example and encouragement to Christians, chap. 4:1-25.
Justification by faith in Christ secures peace with God, present joy, and the assurance of eternal life, chap. 5:1-11. The method, therefore, by which God proposes to save sinners, is analogous to that by which they were first brought under condemnation. As on account of the offense of one, sentence has passed on all men to condemnation; so on account of the righteousness of one, all are justified, chap. 5:12-21.
The doctrine of the gratuitous justification of sinners cannot lead to the indulgence of sin, because such is the nature of union with Christ, and such the object for which he died, that all who receive the benefits of his death, experience the sanctifying influence of his life, chap. 6:1-11. Besides, the objection in question is founded on a misapprehension of the effect and design of the law, and of the nature of sanctification. Deliverance from the bondage of the law and from a legal spirit is essential to holiness. When the Christian is delivered from this bondage, he becomes the servant of God, and is brought under an influence which effectually secures his obedience, chap. 6:12-23.
As, therefore, a woman, in order to be married to a second husband, must first be freed from her former one, so the Christian, in order to be united to Christ, and to bring forth fruit unto God, must first be freed from the law, chap. 7:1-6.
This necessity of deliverance from the law, does not arise from the fact that the law is evil, but from the nature of the case. The law is but the authoritative declaration of duty; which cannot alter the state of the sinner’s heart. Its real operation is to produce the conviction of sin (vers.
7-13), and, in the renewed mind, to excite approbation and complacency in the excellence which it exhibits, but it cannot effectually secure the destruction of sin. This can only be done by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, chap. 7:7-25.
Those who are in Christ, therefore, are perfectly safe. They are freed from the law; they have the indwelling of the life-giving Spirit: they are the children of God; they are chosen, called, and justified according to the divine purpose; and they are the objects of the unchanging love of God, chap. 8:1-39.
The second part of the epistle relates to the persons to whom the blessings of Christ’s kingdom may properly be offered, and the purposes of God respecting the Jews. In entering upon this subject, the apostle after assuring his kindred of his affection, establishes the position that God has not bound himself to regard as his children all the natural descendants of Abraham, but is at perfect liberty to choose whom he will to be heirs of his kingdom. The right of God to have mercy on whom he will have mercy, he proves from the declarations of Scripture, and from the dispensations of his providence. He shows that this doctrine of the divine sovereignty is not inconsistent with the divine character or man’s responsibility, because God simply chooses from among the undeserving whom he will as the objects of his mercy, and leaves others to the just recompense of their sins, chap. 9:1-24.
God accordingly predicted of old, that he would call the Gentiles and reject the Jews. The rejection of the Jews was on account of their unbelief, chs.
the purpose of showing that the legal method is impracticable, but that the method proposed in the gospel is simple and easy, and adapted to all men.
It should, therefore, agreeably to the revealed purpose of God, be preached to all men, chap. 10:6-21.
The rejection of the Jews is not total; many of that generation were brought into the church, who were of the election of grace, chap. 11:1-10.
Neither is this rejection final. There is to be a future and general conversion of the Jews to Christ, and thus all Israel shall be saved, chap. 11:11-36.
The third or practical part of the epistle, consists of directions, first, as to the general duties of Christians in their various relations to God, chap. 12;
secondly, as to their political or civil duties, chap. 13; and thirdly, as to their ecclesiastical duties, or those duties which they owe to each other as members of the church, chs. 14, 15, 1-13.
The epistle concludes with some account of Paul’s labors and purposes, chap. 15:14-33, and with the usual salutations, chap. 16.
THE
EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS
—————
CHAPTER I
CONTENTS
THIS CHAPTER CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS. THE FIRST EXTENDS TO THE CLOSE OF VER. 17, AND CONTAINS THE GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE. THE SECOND COMMENCES WITH VER. 18, AND EXTENDS TO THE END OF THE CHAPTER:
IT CONTAINS THE ARGUMENT OF THE APOSTLE TO PROVE THAT THE DECLARATION CONTAINED IN VERS. 16, 17, THAT JUSTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE OBTAINED BY FAITH, IS TRUE WITH REGARD TO THE HEATHEN.
ROMANS 1:1-17.
ANALYSIS
T
HIS section consists of two parts. The first from vers. 1 to 7 inclusive, is a salutatory address; the second, from vers. 8 to 17, is the introduction to the epistle. Paul commences by announcing himself as a divinely commissioned teacher, set apart to the preaching of the gospel, ver. 1. Of this gospel, he says,1. That it was promised, and of course partially exhibited in the Old Testament, ver. 2.
2. That its great subject was Jesus Christ, ver. 3. Of Christ he says, that he was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but as to his divine nature, the Son of God, vers. 3, 4. From this Divine Person he had received his office as an apostle. The object of this office was to bring men to believe the gospel; and it contemplated all nations as the field of
Roman Christians, therefore, he wishes grace and peace, ver. 7. Thus far the salutation.
Having shown in what character, and by what right he addressed them, the apostle introduces the subject of his letter by expressing to them his respect and affection. He thanks God, not only that they believed, but that their faith was universally known and talked of, ver. 8. As an evidence of his concern for them, he mentions,
1. That he prayed for them constantly, ver. 9.
2. That he longed to see them, vers. 10, 11.
3. That this wish to see them arose from a desire to do them good, and to reap some fruit of his ministry among them, as well as among other Gentiles, vers. 12, 13.
Because he was under obligation to preach to all men, wise and unwise, he was therefore ready to preach even at Rome, vers. 14, 15. This readiness to preach arose from the high estimate he entertained of the gospel. And his reverence for the gospel was founded not on its excellent system of morals merely, but on its efficacy in saving all who believe, whether Jews or Gentiles, ver. 16. This efficacy of the gospel arises from its teaching the true method of justification, that is, the method of justification by faith, ver. 17. It will be perceived how naturally and skillfully the apostle introduces the two great subjects of the epistle — the method of salvation, and the persons to whom it may properly be offered.
COMMENTARY
VERSE 1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle. Agreeably to the ancient mode of epistolary address, the apostle begins with the declaration of his name and office. It was his office which gave him the right to address the believers at Rome, and elsewhere, with that tone of authority which pervades all his epistles. Speaking as the messenger of Christ, he spake as he spake, as one having authority, and not as an ordinary teacher.
The original name of the apostle was Saul, lWav; demanded. He is first called Paul in Acts 13:9. As this change of his name is mentioned in the
paragraph which contains the account of the conversion of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, some have supposed that the name was assumed in compliment to that distinguished convert. This supposition does not seem to accord with the apostle’s character, and is, on other grounds, less probable than either of the two following. First, as it was not unusual, among the Jews, to change the name of a person in consequence of some remarkable event, as in the case of Abraham and Jacob, Genesis 17:5;
32:28; or when he was advanced to some new office or dignity, Genesis 41:45; Daniel 1:6, 7; so that a new name is sometimes equivalent to a new dignity, Revelation 2:17, it may be supposed that the apostle received the name of Paul, when called to the office of an apostle. This supposition is favored by the consideration that he received the name soon after he entered upon the public exercise of his apostleship, and by the fact that Simon was called Cephas when called to be an apostle, John 1:42;
Matthew 10:2, and that James and John were called Boanerges, Mark 3:17.
Hence Theophylact says that it was in order that even in this matter, he should not be behind the very chief of the apostles, that Saul was called Paul Second, as it was very common for those Jews who had much intercourse with the heathen to bear two names, one Jewish and the other Greek or Roman, which names were sometimes entirely distinct, as Hillel and Pollio, sometimes nearly related as Silas and Silvanus, it is very probable that this was the case with the apostle. He was called Saul among the Jews, and Paul among the Gentiles; and as he was the Apostle of the Gentiles, the latter name became his common designation. As this change was, however, made or announced at an epoch in the apostle’s history, Acts 13:9, the two explanations may be united. “The only supposition,”
says Dr. J. A. Alexander, in his comment on Acts 13:9, “which is free from all these difficulties, and affords a satisfactory solution of the facts in question, is, that this was the time fixed by Divine authority for Paul’s manifestation as Apostle of the Gentiles, and that this manifestation was made more conspicuous by its coincidence with his triumph over a representative of unbelieving and apostate Judaism, and the conversion of an official representative of Rome, whose name was identical with his own apostolic title.”
In calling himself a servant (bondsman) of Jesus Christ, he may have intended either to declare himself the dependent and worshipper of Christ,
express his official relation to the church as the minister of Christ. This is the more probable explanation, because, in the Old Testament h/:jy“ db,[, is common official designation of any one employed in the immediate service of God, Joshua 1:1, 24:29, Jeremiah 29:19, Isaiah 42:1; and because in the New Testament we find the same usage, not only in the beginning of several of the epistles, as “Paul and Timothy, the servants of Jesus
Christ,” Philippians 1:1, “James, the servant of God and of Jesus Christ”
James 1:1, “Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” 2 Peter 1:1; but also in other cases where the word dou~lov; is interchanged with dia>konov minister. Comp. Colossians 1:7, 4:7, 12. It is, therefore, a general official designation of which in the present case, apostle is the specific
explanation. “Apostolatus ministerii est species.” Calvin. It has also been properly remarked, that as the expression, servant of Christ, implies implicit obedience and subjection, it supposes the Divine authority of the Redeemer. That is, we find the apostle denying that he was the servant of men, rejecting all human authority as it regards matters of faith and duty, and yet professing the most absolute subjection of conscience and reason to the authority of Jesus Christ.
klhto>v ajpo>stolov, called an apostle. Paul was not only a servant of Christ, but by Divine appointment an apostle. This idea is included in the word klhto>v; which means not only called, but chosen, appointed; and the klh~siv, or vocation, as well of believers to grace and salvation, as of the apostles to their office is uniformly ascribed to God or Christ; see Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; Titus 1:1; Galatians 1:15. As the immediate call of Christ was one of the essential requisites of an apostle, Paul means to assert in the use of the word klhto>v that he was neither self-appointed nor chosen by men to that sacred office.
The word ajpo>stolov; occurs in its original sense of messenger in several cases in the New Testament. John 13:16, oujk e]sti ajpo>stolov mei>zwn tou~ pe>myantov aujto>n. Philippians 2:25, ∆Epafro>diton....uJmw~n de ajpo>stolon. Comp. 4:18. In 2 Corinthians 8:23, Paul, speaking of the brethren who were with him, calls them ajpo>stoloi ejkklhsiw~n;
toute>stin says Chrysostom, uJpo ejkklhsiw~n pemfqe>ntev.
Theophylact adds, kai< ceirotonhqe>ntev. Our translators, therefore, are
doubtless correct in rendering this phrase, messengers of the churches. As a strict official designation, the word apostle is confined to those men selected and commissioned by Christ himself to deliver in his name the message of salvation. It appears from Luke 6:13, that the Savior himself gave them this title. “And when it was day, he called his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles.” If it be asked why this name was chosen, it is perhaps enough to say, that it was peculiarly appropriate. It is given to those who were sent by Christ to perform a particular service, who were therefore properly called messengers. There is no necessity to resort for an explanation of the term, to the fact that the word jæyliv] messenger, was applied sometimes to the teachers and ministers of the synagogue, sometimes to plenipotentiaries sent by the Sanhedrim to execute some ecclesiastical commission.
The apostles, then, were the immediate messengers of Christ, appointed to bear testimony to what they had seen and heard. “Ye also shall bear witness,” said Christ, speaking to the twelve, “because ye have been with me from the beginning.” John 15:27. This was their peculiar office; hence when Judas fell, one, said Peter, who has companioned with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, must be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. Acts 1:21. To be an apostle, therefore, it was necessary to have seen Christ after his resurrection, 1 Corinthians 9:1, and to have a knowledge of his life and doctrines derived immediately from himself. Without this no man could be a witness, he would only report what he had heard from others, he could bear no independent testimony to what he himself had seen and heard. Christ, therefore, says to his disciples, after his resurrection, “Ye shall be my witnesses,” Acts 1:8, and the apostles accordingly constantly presented themselves in this character. Acts 2:32, 3:15, 13:31. “We are witnesses,” said Peter, speaking of himself and fellow-apostles, “of all things which he did, both in the land of Judea, and in Jerusalem.” Acts 10:39. When Paul was called to be an apostle, the Savior said to him, “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.”
Acts 26:16. We accordingly find, that whenever Paul was called upon to defend his apostleship, he strenuously asserted that he was appointed not of men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ; and as to his doctrines, that he
revelation of Jesus Christ. Galatians 1:12.
As the testimony which the Apostles were to bear related to all that Jesus had taught them, it was by preaching the gospel that they discharged their duty as witnesses. Hence Paul says, “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel.” 1 Corinthians 1:17. To the elders of Ephesus he said,
“I count not my life dear unto me, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” Acts 20:24.
To give authority to this testimony the apostles were inspired, and as religious teachers infallible. John 14:26, 16:13. They had the power of working miracles, in confirmation of their mission. Matthew 10:8, and the Acts of the Apostles passim. This power they could communicate to others by the laying on of their hands. Acts 9:15, 17, 18, 19:6. This is what is meant by giving the Holy Ghost, for the apostles never claimed the power of communicating the sanctifying influences of the Spirit. Nor was the power of giving the Spirit, in the sense above-mentioned, peculiar to them, for we read that Ananias, a disciple, was sent to Paul that he might receive the Holy Ghost. Acts 9:17. The apostles seem also to have had the gift of “discerning spirits,” 1 Corinthians 12:10, and of remitting sins. John 20:23. They ordained presbyters over the congregations gathered by their ministry, Acts 14:23, etc.; and exercised a general jurisdiction over the churches. 1 Corinthians 5:3-5, 2 Corinthians 10:6, 8, 11, 1 Timothy 1:20.
The apostles, therefore, were the immediate messengers of Jesus Christ, sent to declare his gospel, endued with the Holy Spirit, rendering them infallible as teachers, and investing them with miraculous powers, and clothed with peculiar prerogatives in the organization and government of the Church.
It is in explanation of his apostolic office, and in the further assertion of his divine commission that Paul adds, ajfwrisme>nov eijv eujagge>lion qeou~, separated unto the gospel of God. ∆Afori>zein is to limit off, to separate, to select from among others. It is so used in Leviticus 20:24, 26,
“I am the Lord your God, which have separated you from other people.”
In the same sense, in Galatians 1:15, “when it pleased God, who separated
me from my mother’s womb;” that is, who singled me out, or chose me. It is obvious, therefore, that the apostle here refers to his appointment by God to his office. In Acts 13:2, it is said, “Separate (ajfori>sate) unto me Barnabas and Saul,” where a separation not to the ministry, much less to the apostleship, but to a special mission is referred to. Paul’s designation to office was neither of man, nor by man. Galatians 1:1. The words eijv eujagge>lion, unto the gospel, express the object to which he was devoted when thus separated from the mass of his brethren; it was to preach the gospel. The divine origin of the gospel is asserted in calling it the gospel of God. It is the glad annunciation which God makes to men of the pardon of sin, of restoration to his favor, of the renovation of their nature, of the resurrection of the body, and of eternal life.
VERSE 2. Which he promised afore. That is, the gospel which Paul was sent to preach, was the same system of grace and truth, which from the beginning had been predicted and partially unfolded in the writings of the Old Testament. The reason why the Apostle here adverts to that fact probably was, that one of the strongest proofs of the divine origin of the gospel is found in the prophecies of the Old Testament. The advent, the character, the work, the kingdom of the Messiah, are there predicted, and it was therefore out of the Scriptures that the apostles reasoned, to convince the people that Jesus is the Christ; and to this connection between the two dispensations they constantly refer, in proof of their doctrines. See ch.
3:21; 4:3; 9:27, 33; 10:11, 20. Comp. Luke 24:44; John 12:16; Acts 10:43.
By his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. As in Scripture the term profh>thv, Hebrews aybin:, is applied to any one who spake by inspiration as the ambassador of God and the interpreter of his will; profhtw~n here includes all the Old Testament writers, whether prophets in the strict sense of the term, or teachers, or historians. Meyer indeed insists that the line of the prophets begins with Samuel according to Acts 3:24 — “all the prophets from Samuel, and those who follow after,” and therefore that the earlier writers of the Old Testament are not here included. But Moses was a prophet, and what is here expressed by the words “his prophets,” is explained by the phrase “the law and the prophets,” in ch. 3:21.
which the Jews regarded as holy, because they treated of holy things, and because they were given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
VERSE 3. Concerning his Son. These words are either to be connected with eujagge>lion, the gospel concerning his Son; or with proephggei>lato, which he promised concerning his Son. The sense in either case is much the same. As most commentators and editors regard the second verse as a parenthesis, they of course adopt the former construction; but as there is no necessity for assuming any parenthesis, the natural grammatical connection is with proephggei>lato. The personal object of the ancient promises is the Son of God.
It is a well known scriptural usage, that the designations employed in reference to our Lord are sometimes applied to him as a historical person, God and man, and sometimes exclusively to one or the other of the two natures, the divine and human, which enter into the constitution of the theanthropos. Thus the term Son designates the Logos in all those passages in which he is spoken of as the Creator of all things; at other times it designates the incarnate Logos; as when it is said, “the Son shall make you free.” Sometimes the same term is used in the same passage in reference fist to the incarnate Word, and then to the Word as the second person of the Trinity. Thus in Hebrews 1:2, it is said, “Hath spoken unto us by his Son, (the historical person, Jesus Christ,) by whom (the eternal Word) he made the worlds.” So here “concerning his Son,” means the Son of God as clothed in our nature, the Word made flesh; but in the next clause,
“declared to be the Son of God,” the word Son designates the divine nature of Christ. In all cases, however, it is a designation implying participation of the divine nature. Christ is called the Son of God because he is
consubstantial with the Father, and therefore equal to him in power and glory. The term expresses the relation of the second to the first person in the Trinity, as it exists from eternity. It is therefore, as applied to Christ, not a term of office, nor expressive of any relation assumed in time. He was and is the Eternal Son. This is proved from John 1:1-14 where the term uiJo>v is interchanged with lo>gov. It was the Son, therefore, who in the beginning was with God, who was God, who created all things, in whom was life, who is the light of men, who is in the bosom of the Father. In
John 5:17-31, Christ calls himself the Son of God, in a sense which made him equal to the Father, having the same power, the same authority, and a right to the same honor. In John 10:29-42, Christ declares God to be his Father in such a sense as to make himself God, one with the Father; and he vindicates his claim to this participation of the divine nature by appealing to his works. In Colossians 1:13-17, he is said as Son to be the image of the invisible God, the exact exemplar, and of course the reveler of the Divine nature; the Creator of all things that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible. In Hebrews 1:4-6, the title Son is adduced as proof that he is superior to the angels, and entitled to their worship. He is therefore called God’s proper Son, i]diov, Romans 8:32, (comp. pate>ra i]dion e]legen to<n qeo>n, John 5:18); his own Son, eJautou~, Romans 8:3;
his only begotten Son, monogenh>v, John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9.
Hence giving, sending, not sparing this Son, is said to be the highest conceivable evidence of the love of God, John 3:16; Romans 8:32; 1 John 4:9. The historical sense of the terms lo>gov, eijkw>n, uiJo>v, prwtoto>kov, as learned from the Scriptures and the usus loquendi of the apostolic age, shows that they must, in their application to Christ, be understood of his Divine nature.
Who was made of the seed of David. As gi>nomai, from the assumed theme ge>nw, to beget, signifies to begin to be, to come into existence, it is often used in reference to descent or birth, geno>menon ejk gunaiko>v, Galatians 4:4; hv ejgenh>qhte te>kna, 1 Peter 3:6. “Made of the seed of David,” is therefore equivalent to “born of the seed of David.” That the Messiah was to be of the family of David, was predicted in the Old Testament, and affirmed in the New. Isaiah 9:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Matthew 22:45; John 7:42;
Acts 13:23.
The limitation kata< sa>rka, according to the flesh, obviously implies the superhuman character of Jesus Christ. Were he a mere man, it had been enough to say that he was of the seed of David; but as he is more then man, it was necessary to limit his descent from David to his human nature.
That the word sa>rx here means human nature is obvious both from the scriptural usage of the word, and from the nature of the case. See John 1:14; Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John 4:2, 3. It is not the flesh or body, as opposed to the soul, but the human, as opposed to the divine
element with its organic life, the sw~ma and yuch>, to the exclusion of the pneu~ma or rational principle, according to the Apollinarian doctrine, but the entire humanity of Christ, including “a true body and a reasonable soul.” This is the sense of the word in all the parallel passages in which the incarnation is the subject. As when it is said, “The Word was made flesh,”
John 1:14; or, “God was manifested in the flesh,” 1 Timothy 3:16. These are explained by saying, “He was found in fashion as a man,” Philippians 2:8. The word therefore includes everything which constitutes the nature which a child derives from its progenitors.
VERSE 4. Declared to the Son of God. The word oJri>zein means, 1. To limit, or bound, and, in reference to ideas, to define.
2. To determine. Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Hebrews 4:7.
3. To appoint, or constitute. Acts 10:42.
oJ wJrisme>nov uJpo< tou~ qeou~ krith<v zw>ntwn kai< nekrw~n. Acts 17:31.
This last sense is given by some few commentators to oJrisqe>ntov in this passage. The apostle would then say that Christ was appointed, or constituted the Son of God, by or after his resurrection. But this is
inconsistent with what he elsewhere teaches, viz., that Christ was the Son of God before the foundation of the world, Colossians 1:15. As shown above, Son of God is not a title of office, but of nature, and therefore Christ cannot be said to have been constituted the Son of God. This interpretation also would involve the latter part of the verse in great difficulties. Hence even those commentators who most strenuously insist on adhering to the signification of words, are constrained, ex necessitate loci, to understand oJrisqe>ntov here declaratively, or in reference to the knowledge of men. That is, when Christ is said to be constituted the Son of God, we are not to understand that he became or was made Son, but was, in the view of men, thus determined. 6
The vulgate reads, qui praedestinatus est, which version is followed by most of the Roman Catholic interpreters, and by Grotius. This rendering is probably founded on the reading proorisqe>ntov, which, although old, has little evidence in its favor. Neither is the sense thus expressed suited to the context. Christ was not predestined to be the Son of God. He was such from eternity.
With power; toute>sti, says Theophylact, ajpo< th~v duna>mewv tw~n shmei>wn w=n ejpoi>ei; Theodoret also understands these words to refer to the miracles which Jesus, by the power of the Holy Ghost, wrought in confirmation of his claim to be the Son of God. The former of these commentators takes ejn duna>mei, kata< pneu~ma, ejx ajnasta>sewv, as indicating three distinct sources of proof of the Sonship of Christ. He was proved by his miraculous power, by the Holy Spirit either as given to him, or as by him given to his people (the latter is Theophylact’s view), and by his resurrection, to be the Son of God. But the change of the prepositions, and especially the antithetical structure of the sentence, by which kata<
pneu~ma is obviously opposed to kata< sa>rka, are decisive objections to this interpretation. Others propose to connect ejn duna>mei with uiJou~, Son in power, for powerful Son; a more common and more natural construction is to connect them with oJrisqe>ntov, proved, or declared with power, for powerfully, effectually proved to be the Son of God. He was declared with emphasis to be the Son of God, ita ut ejus rei plenissima et certissima sit fides. Winzer.
According to the Spirit of holiness. As just remarked, these words are in antithesis with kata< sa>rka; as to the flesh he was the Son of David, as to the Spirit the Son of God. As sa>rx means his human nature, pneu~ma can hardly mean anything else than the higher or divine nature of Christ.
The word pneu~ma may be taken in this sense in 1 Timothy 3:16,
ejdikaiw>qh ejn pneu>mati, justified by the Spirit, i.e., he was shown to be just, his claims were all sustained by the manifestations of his divine nature, i.e., of his divine power and authority. Hebrews 9:14, o[v dia<
pneu>matov aijwni>ou, who with an eternal Spirit offered himself unto God.
1 Peter 3:18 is a more doubtful passage. The genitive aJgiwsu>nhv is a qualification of pneu~ma, Spirit of holiness; the Spirit whose characteristic is holiness. This expression seems to be here used, to prevent ambiguity, as Holy Spirit is appropriated as the designation of the third person of the Trinity. As the word holy often means august, venerandus, so aJgiwsu>nh expresses that attribute of a person which renders him worthy of
reverence; pneu~ma aJgiwsu>nhv is therefore, Spiritus summe venerandus, the qeo>thv, divine nature, or Godhead, which dwelt in Jesus Christ; the Logos, who in the beginning was with God, and was God, and who became
state of exaltation of Christ, is plain; first, because the word is never so used elsewhere; and, secondly, because it is inconsistent with the antithesis to kata< sa>rka. Those who understand the phrase “Spirit of holiness” to refer to the Holy Spirit, either, as before remarked, suppose that the apostle refers to the evidence given by the Spirit to the Sonship of Christ, hence Calvin renders kata< pneu~ma per Spiritum; or they consider him as appealing to the testimony of the Spirit as given in the Scriptures.
‘Christ was declared to be the Son of God, agreeably to the Spirit.’ To both these views, however, the same objection lies, that it destroys the antithesis.
ejx ajnasta>sewv nekrw~n, is rendered by Erasmus, Luther, and others, after the resurrection from the dead. It was not until Christ had risen that the evidence of his Sonship was complete, or the fullness of its import known even to the apostles. But it is better suited to the context, and more agreeable to the Scripture, to consider the resurrection itself, as the
evidence of his Sonship. It was by the resurrection that he was proved to be the Son of God. “God,” says the apostle, “will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” Acts 17:31.
The apostle Peter also says, that “God hath begotten us to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” 1 Peter 1:3. Comp.
3:21; Acts 13:35; 26:23; 1 Corinthians 15:20. In these and many other passages the resurrection of Christ is represented as the great conclusive evidence of the truth of all that Christ taught, and of the validity of all his claims. If it be asked how the resurrection of Christ is a proof of his being the Son of God, it may be answered, first, because he rose by his own power. He had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again. John 10:18. This is not inconsistent with the fact taught in so many other passages, that he was raised by the power of the Father, because what the Father does the Son does likewise; creation, and all other external works, are ascribed indifferently to the Father, Son, and Spirit. But in the second place, as Christ had openly declared himself to be the Son of God, his rising from the dead was the seal of God to the truth of that
declaration. Had he continued under the power of death, God would thereby have disallowed his claim to be his Son; but as he raised him from
the dead, he publicly acknowledged him; saying, Thou art my Son, this day have I declared thee such. “If Christ be not right, then is our preaching vain,” says the apostle, “and your faith is also vain. But now is Christ risen, and become the first fruits of them that slept.”
Jesus Christ our Lord. These words are in apposition with tou~ uiJou~
aujtou~ of the third verse; “his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” All the names of Christ are precious to his people. He is called Jesus, Savior, because he saves his people from their sins. Matthew 1:21. The name Christ, i.e., Messiah, Anointed, connects him with all the predictions and promises of the Old Testament. He is the anointed prophet, priest, and king, to whom all believing eyes had been so long directed, and on whom all hopes centered. He is ku>riov hJmw~n our Lord. This word indeed is often used as a mere term of respect, equivalent to Sir, but as it is employed by the LXX., as the common substitute of Jehovah, or rather as the translation of yn:/da}, in the sense of supreme Lord and possessor, so it is in the New Testament applied in the same sense to Christ. He is our supreme Lord and possessor. We belong to him, and his authority over us is absolute, extending to the heart and conscience as well as to the outward conduct;
and to him every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. He, then, who in this exalted sense is our Lord, is, as to his human nature, the Son of David, and, as to his Divine nature, the Son of God.
VERSE 5. Through whom we have received grace and apostleship. As it was of the utmost importance that Paul’s authority as an apostle should be acknowledged in the Church, he here repeats the assertion that he received his office immediately from Jesus Christ, whose exalted character as the Son of God and our supreme Lord he had just declared. Though dij ou= properly means through whom, by whose instrumentality, the preposition must here be taken in a more general sense as indicating the source from whom. Comp. Galatians 1:1, dia< qeou~ patro>v. Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 1:9. The words ca>rin kai< ajpostolh>n may either be taken together and rendered the favor of the apostleship, or each word may be taken separately. Then ca>riv refers to the kindness of God manifested to the apostle in his conversion and vocation. ‘Through whom we received grace, favor in general, and specially, the apostleship.’
Unto the obedience of faith. These words express the object of the apostleship; pi>stewv is either the genitive of apposition, “obedience which consists in faith;” or it is the genitive of the source, “obedience which flows from faith;” or it is the genitive of the object, “obedience to faith;” i.e., to the gospel. In favor of the last interpretation reference may be made to 2 Corinthians 10:5. hJ uJpakoh< tou~ Cristou~; 1 Peter 1:22, hJ uJpakoh< th~v ajlhqei>av, obedience to the truth. See Galatians 1:23; Acts 6:7; Jude 3 for examples of the use of pi>sti>v in this objective sense. The subjective sense, however, of the word pi>stiv in the New Testament is so predominant that it is safest to retain it in this passage. The obedience of faith is that obedience which consists in faith, or of which faith is the controlling principle. The design of the apostleship was to bring all nations so to believe in Christ the Son of God that they should be entirely devoted to his service. The sense is the same if pi>stiv be taken objectively,
understood, however, not of the gospel, but of the inward principle of faith to which the nations were to be obedient. Among all nations. The apostles were not diocesans restricted in jurisdiction to a particular territory. Their commission was general. It was to all nations. If these words are connected with we received, they express directly the extent of the apostle’s mission, ‘We have received a mission among all nations.’ If, as is much more natural, on account of their position, they are connected with the immediately preceding words, they express the same idea indirectly; his office was to promote obedience to the faith among all nations. For his name. That is for the sake of (uJpe>r) his name or glory.
These words are most naturally connected with the whole preceding verse, and express the final end of the apostleship, viz., the honor of Christ. It was to promote the knowledge and glory of Christ that Paul had received his office and labored to make the nations obedient to the gospel.
VERSE 6. Among whom are ye also. The apostle thus justifies his
addressing the Church at Rome in his official character. If the commission which he had received extended to all nations, he was not transcending its limits in writing as an apostle to any church, though it had not been founded by his instrumentality, nor enjoyed his personal ministry. Called of Jesus Christ. This may mean, Those whom Christ has called. But as the klh~siv, or vocation of believers, is generally in the New Testament
referred to God, the meaning probably is, The called who belong to Christ.
Qui Dei beneficio estis Jesu Christi. Beza. The word klhto>v is never in the epistles applied to one who is merely invited by the external call of the gospel. OiJ klhtoi>, the called, means the effectually called; those who are so called by God as to be made obedient to the call. Hence the klhtoi> are opposed to those who receive and disregard the outward call. Christ, though an offense to the Jews and Greeks, is declared to be (toi~v klhtoi~v) to the called the wisdom and power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24. Hence, too, klhtoi> and ejklektoi> are of nearly the same import; kata<
pro>qesin klhtoi>, Romans 8:28; comp. Romans 9:11; 1 Corinthians 1:26, 27. We accordingly find klhtoi> used as a familiar designation of believers, as in Revelation 17:14 oiJ met∆ aujtou~ klhtoi< kai< ejklektoi< kai<
pistoi>. See Jude 1:1. Comp. Romans 8:30; 9:24; 1 Corinthians 1:9; 7:17, et seq., Galatians 1:15; Ephesians 4:1; Colossians 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 2:12; 5:24; 2 Timothy 1:9. In these and in many other passages, the verb kale>w expresses the inward efficacious call of the Holy Spirit.
Theophylact remarks that the word klhtoi> is applied to Christians, since they are drawn by grace, and do not come of themselves. God, as it were, anticipates them. The same remark may be made of most of the other terms by which believers are designated. They all more or less distinctly bring into view the idea of the agency of God in making them to differ from others. They are called ejklektoi> qeou~. Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12; 1 Timothy 1:1; or more fully ejklektoi< kata< pro>gnwsin qeou~, 1 Peter 1:2; hJgiasme>noi sanctified, which includes the idea of separation, 1 Corinthians 1:2; Jude 1:1; proorisqe>ntev kata< pro>qesin tou~ qeou~, Ephesians 1:11; swzo>menoi, 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15;
tetagme>noi eijv zwh<n aijw>nion, Acts 13:48.
VERSE 7. To all who are in Rome. These words are, in sense, connected with the first verse, “Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, to all who are in Rome.” Beloved of God. This is the great distinction and blessedness of believers, they are the beloved of God. They are not so called simply because, as was the case with the ancient Israelites, they are selected from the rest of the world, and made the recipients of peculiar external favors;
but because they are the objects of that great love wherewith he hath loved those whom, when they were dead in sins, he hath quickened together with
Colossians 3:12; they are brethren beloved of the Lord, 2 Thessalonians 2:13. Called to be saints. The former of these worlds stands in the same relation to the latter that klhto>v does to ajpo>stolov in ver. 1, called to be an apostle, called to be saints. It is one of those designations peculiar to the true people of God, and expresses at once their vocation, and that to which they are called, viz., holiness. The word a[giov, in accordance with the meaning of v/dq; in the Old Testament, signifies clean, pure morally, consecrated, and especially as applied to God, holy, worth of reverence.
The people of Israe
